Moving Picture Age (Jan-Dec 1922)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

MAY -6 1922 Vol. V No. 5 Moving Picture Age MAY 1922 PUBLIC WELFARE vs. PRIVATE GAIN Raymond G. Clapp Secretary, Cincinnati Committee of Non-Theatrical Exhibitors [On the Editorial Page will be found a detailed discussion of steps now being taken toward the definite and final solution of this problem. The attention of every forward-looking citizen is called to the editorial comment, which is based on personal contact with the difficulty in the two locations where it has become most acute. — The Editor.] R lULE or ruin" is the deceptive idea that has captured the imagination of certain theatrical exhibitors of motion pictures. Proceeding on this supposition, they hold over the heads of the producers and distributors this menacing threat: "Either we must rule absolutely as to the disposal of films, or we and you go down to ruin !" A deeper insight would make it clear to them that, especially in a democratic country, the declaration of a policy of selfish domination will arouse such public resentment as will eventually nullify their hopes of success. Attempt to rule, and ruin will stare you in the face. Such was the sad experience of Germany; and such a fate is in store for the theatrical exhibitor who does not refuse to follow those trying to lead him to boycott all distributors furnishing films to schools, churches, and other non-theatrical institutions. His picture of rule or ruin will dissolve into a chaos of rule and ruin ! The Value of Public Good Will The motion-picture industry meets too insistent a demand of human nature, and is too firmly established, to warrant any prediction of utter failure. Films have come to stay ; but men who selfishly seek to rule the supply of this great human want are not necessarily going to stay in control of the activity. Disregard of public good will through carelessness of moral principles has already cost them a loss of support that they have felt deeply; and in time to come the continuance of disregard of public welfare may cause them still further hard times and eventual displacement by wiser executives, able to keep the good will of the people by showing a spirit of good will themselves to that great majority of the population who stand for its development in character. The choice of Mr. Hays to supervise general motion-picture policies is a step in the right direction. The Churches and Sunday Motion Pictures A mistaken notion has prevailed in the minds of many theatrical exhibitors to the effect that the churches as a whole are out to fight them to the last ditch. Thousands of churches are now using the better films in their services or in entertainments. Hostility to motion pictures belongs to a rapidly lessening group among the churches, and is magnified in the fears of these theatre managers to an exaggerated degree. In fact they even say, "Why should you distributors rent films to the churches when they are using the profits to close the theatres on Sunday?" Such a charge is absolutely without foundation, so far as is shown by my acquaintance over several years with churches using pictures. Churches that use films seldom make more than their bare expense of maintenance of the pictures ; and if any profits do accrue, they are usually used for community service of some sort. While probably all churches would prefer not to have Sunday film showings instituted where they have never been in operation, the churches that use motion pictures are not among those fighting Sunday exhibitions. These churches have accepted the operation of motion pictures on Sunday as having been approved by the people, and are simply tr}ring to improve, by careful selection, the character of the pictures seen, at the same time endeavoring to add to the appeal and effectiveness of their services of worship and instruction by the use of the eye-gate as well as the ear-gate. The school or church or social center, by choosing the better type of films and lending to their use the guaranty of its established reputation for promoting the moral welfare of the youth, is creating film advocates among those who have looked with distrust or antagonism on all theatrical productions. By increasing the demand for the better class of films the non-theatrical exhibitor is also enabling the producer to make more of the sort of pictures that will hold the public interest more permanently than do the cheaper, exciting, and suggestive sort of plays. Has the theatrical exhibitor realized what might be the effect of turning these strong promoters of public opinion — the school, the church, the community center — from interested co-operation to aggressive antagonism, if not to the industry, at least to the present promoters of that industry? At present there are only one-fifth as many non-theatrical as theatrical exhibitors; but the number of non-theatrical exhibitors is growing daily, and will soon far exceed the number of theatres using films. Even before that day the nontheatrical group will hold the balance of power in the molding of that public opinion that will make the theatrical exhibition either a going or a lagging concern. Their demand for pictures, if not satisfied by the present producers and distributors, will ultimately raise up others to produce and distribute, who will win out, not by extravagance but by the worth of their product and service. The theatre urges its payment of taxes as the chief reason for its claim to the exclusive use of feature films. Inasmuch as the theatre exists for private gain and the school and the church use pictures for public good rather than for private advantage, the payment of taxes by the theatre alone is perfectly justifiable from the point of view of the public welfare, and is in no sense grounds for theatrical monopoly of entertainment of education by the use of moving pictures. What Is an Educational Film? The theatre graciously grants the non-theatrical exhibitor the privilege of renting from the distributing exchange what it terms "educational" films — scenics, industrials, and scientific and historical reels — provided there is no story involved. But wherever the human interest is developed by a dramatic theme or plot, presto ! the film loses all educational quality and becomes purely entertainment, and as such open only to theatrical use ! Is there not educational value in such literary films as "Silas Marner," "Rip Van Winkle," "Huckleberry Finn," "Quo Vadis," "The Bonnie Brier Bush," "The Little Minister"? May not the social teaching and religious message of "The Inside of the Cup" and "The Servant in the House" be used by the institutions dedicated to uplifting community welfare? Has the theatre alone the right to stimulate historical interest through "Cardigan," "The Courtship of Miles Standish," the story of Henry VIII in "Deception," and similar productions of genuine merit? The Cincinnati Situation Some of our Cincinnati non-theatrical exhibitors are practically shut off from the rental of dramatic films from local exchanges. Letters from exchange managers give slight hope of betterment. Since it is to the advantage of the distributors to rent their films to as many as possible, the inference lies near at hand that the theatrical exhibitor is the cause of this unfair restraint of trade. In some cases the protest of the local theatre manager is known to have been the instigating agent in this exclusion. Hints of organized boycott are rife. Some non-theatrical parties are free to